Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13A4633BD9 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 2009 17:05:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27855-04 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 2009 17:05:42 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from alexis.jtlnet.com (alexis.jtlnet.com [69.36.9.81]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97296633A4B for ; Sat, 6 Jun 2009 17:05:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.10.103] (cpe-075-177-154-027.nc.res.rr.com [::ffff:75.177.154.27]) (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by alexis.jtlnet.com with esmtp; Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:05:04 -0400 id 0008044A.4A2ACBF1.0000162C Message-ID: <4A2ACC0A.1000006@dunslane.net> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:05:30 -0400 From: Andrew Dunstan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20071019 Fedora/1.0.9-3.fc6 pango-text SeaMonkey/1.0.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: Mark Mielke , Markus Wanner , Ron Mayer , Marko Kreen , Greg Stark , Andres Freund , Aidan Van Dyk , Heikki Linnakangas , Magnus Hagander , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up References: <20090526144812.GC15213@yugib.highrise.ca> <20090602162333.369974jcc3jpn3dx@mail.bluegap.ch> <20090602180702.15986cp384yo3l7q@mail.bluegap.ch> <20090603131004.12934iyrr4f7rlsc@mail.bluegap.ch> <4136ffa0906030508i2971790dk54a8203ee03ed196@mail.gmail.com> <4A266A56.2020703@anarazel.de> <4136ffa0906030701x200bf0e4o4c77fa3239062ca5@mail.gmail.com> <20090604114610.808217tbogts0noi@mail.bluegap.ch> <4A283A8D.8030600@cheapcomplexdevices.com> <20090605090514.11712ntlvhi2deay@mail.bluegap.ch> <2871.1244209112@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4A2922E8.1090505@dunslane.net> <4A2A8E16.2090703@bluegap.ch> <4A2A9FB8.4050405@dunslane.net> <11701.1244308956@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4A2AAD96.1030603@mark.mielke.cc> <12326.1244311188@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <12326.1244311188@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200906/533 X-Sequence-Number: 139588 Tom Lane wrote: >> Any revision control system should be able to do better than diff/patch >> as these systems have more information available to them. Normal GIT >> uses the relatively common 3-way merge based upon the most recent common >> ancestor algorithm. Assuming there is a most recent common ancestor that >> isn't "file creation", it will have a better chance of doing the right >> thing. >> > > And I still haven't seen any actual evidence. Could we have fewer > undocumented assertions and more experimental evidence? Take Andrew's > plperl patches and see if git does any better with them than plain patch > does. (If it's not successful with that patch, it's pointless to try it > on any bigger cases, I fear.) > > > The plperl stuff is actually a tough case. In 7.4 we didn't have provision for two interpreters, so PERL_SYS_INIT3 is called unconditionally, and we didn't have a Windows port either, so the comment is also different. I guess that in itself illustrates the problems. I also entirely agree with your point about us being more kludgey and less invasive on back branches. cheers andrew